# 91 485-490 View full article

УДК 355/359:004.056

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2026-2-91

Shakhovets Andriy Oleksandrovich,
PhD student at the Department of International Economic Relations and Business,
Kyiv Aviation Institute,
ORCID: 0009-0009-5956-885X

JEL classification: F52, L86, O32

The article examines the impact of global digitalization on the functioning and resilience of military-industrial complexes amid intensifying geopolitical competition and rapid technological transformation. The study emphasizes that digitalization has evolved from a modernization instrument into a strategic foundation for maintaining technological superiority in contemporary military conflicts. At the same time, increasing dependence on digital technologies, artificial intelligence, automated control systems, and global digital platforms significantly increases the vulnerability of defense industries to cyber threats and technological disruptions. The conceptual foundations of the research are clarified by interpreting categories such as global digitalization, military-industrial potential, cyber risks, and strategic autonomy. The paper highlights that a state’s military-industrial potential should be considered not only through the prism of production capacities but also in terms of innovation capabilities, technological sovereignty, scientific resources, and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing security environments. Special attention is devoted to the evolution of cyber threats affecting military facilities and defense enterprises. The study demonstrates the transition from early cyber espionage and intellectual property theft to advanced persistent threats, hybrid warfare, supply chain attacks, and emerging artificial intelligence-oriented and quantum-related risks. It is argued that cyber threats have become a systemic factor shaping national security, military readiness, and strategic decision-making. The authors propose a comprehensive classification of cyber risks based on their origin, objects of influence, consequences, and scale. The findings indicate that technological and defense-related cyber risks pose the greatest danger because they can cause physical disruptions, compromise strategic systems, and reduce military capabilities. In addition, technological dependence on foreign digital solutions creates significant challenges for maintaining strategic autonomy. The article argues that ensuring the resilience of military-industrial complexes in the era of global digitalization requires an integrated approach that combines technological, organizational, institutional, and legal measures. Strengthening national cyber resilience, developing domestic technological capabilities, diversifying critical supply chains, implementing international cybersecurity standards, and enhancing intersectoral cooperation are identified as key priorities for preserving strategic autonomy and ensuring sustainable defense development.

Keywords: global digitalization, military-industrial complex, cyber risks, strategic autonomy, digital transformation, information security, cyber threats, technological dependence, defense infrastructure.

Rеferences

  1. Prymak, O. (2023). Suchasni problemy zaprovadzhennia tsyfrovizatsii v oboronno-promyslovyi kompleks Ukrainy [Modern problems of introducing digitalization into the defense-industrial complex of Ukraine]. Publichne Upravlinnia: Kontseptsii, Paradyhma, Rozvytkov, Udoskonalennia [Public Management: Concepts, Paradigm, Development, Improvement], (5), 94–104. DOI: 10.31470/2786-6246-2023-5-94-104
  2. Nazaruk, V. (2025). Mizhnarodnyi dosvid proiektuvannia viiskovo-promyslovykh obiektiv ta ioho adaptatsiia do ukrainskykh realii [International experience in the design of military-industrial facilities and its adaptation to Ukrainian realities]. International Science Journal of Engineering & Agriculture, 4(3), 184–195. DOI: 10.46299/j.isjea.20250403.15
  3. Kosmii, M. M., & Nazaruk, V. H. (2025). Yevropeiskyi dosvid revitalizatsii viiskovo-promyslovykh kompleksiv (na prykladi Zakarpatskoho rehionu) [European experience of revitalization of military-industrial complexes (on the example of the Transcarpathian region)]. Mistobuduvannia ta Terytorialne Planuvannia [Urban Planning and Territorial Planning], (88), 133–147. DOI: 10.32347/2076-815x.2025.88.133-146
  4. Fiott, D. (2020). Digitalising defence: Protecting Europe in the age of quantum computing and the cloud. EUISS Brief, (4).
  5. Coveri, A., Cozza, C., & Guarascio, D. (2025). Big Tech and the US Digital-Military-Industrial Complex. Intereconomics, 60(2), 81–87. DOI: 10.2478/ie-2025-0017
  6. Bezruk, D. I. (2023). Didzhytalizatsiia ekonomiky v Ukraini: problemy ta perspektyvy [Digitalization of the economy in Ukraine: Problems and prospects]. Visnyk LTEU. Ekonomichni Nauky [Bulletin of LTEU. Economic Sciences], (71), 46–54. DOI: 10.32782/2522-1205-2023-71-06
  7. Hlukhova, D. A. (2015). Tendentsii ta perspektyvy rozvytku hlobalnykh informatsiinykh tekhnolohii [Trends and prospects for the development of global information technologies]. Aktualni Problemy Mizhnarodnykh Vidnosyn [Actual Problems of International Relations], (126(1)), 111–116. DOI: 10.17721/apmv.2015.126.1.111-116
  8. Dovhal, O. A., & Dovhal, H. V. (2020). Tsyfrova hlobalizatsiia v epokhu chetvertoi promyslovoi revoliutsii: potentsial transformatsii [Digital globalization in the era of the fourth industrial revolution: Transformation potential]. Ekonomichnyi Prostir [Economic Scope], (167), 5–11. DOI: 10.32782/2224-6282/167-1
  9. Dyba, M. I., & Herneho, Yu. O. (2020). Vyklyky Industrii 4.0 u konteksti ii stanovlennia na hlobalnomu i natsionalnomu rivniakh [Challenges of Industry 4.0 in the context of its establishment on global and national levels]. Ekonomika Ukrainy [Economy of Ukraine], (6), 43–58. DOI: 10.15407/economyukr.2020.06.043
  10. Mentges, A., Halekotte, L., Schneider, M., & et al. (2023). A resilience glossary shaped by context: Reviewing resilience-related terms for critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 238, Article 109420. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109420
  11. Vogel, E., Dyka, Z., Klann, D., & Langendörfer, P. (2021). Resilience in the Cyber World: Definitions, features and models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10235
  12. Kott, A., Blakely, B., Henshel, D., & et al. (2018). Approaches to Enhancing Cyber Resilience: Report of the NATO Workshop IST-153. Springer.
  13. Burmaoglu, S., & Saritas, O. (2017). Changing characteristics of warfare and the future of military R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 151–161. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.062
  14. Tabaković, N., & Duraković, B. (2021). Impact of Industry 4.0 on Aerospace and Defense Systems. Defense and Security Studies, 2(1). DOI: 10.37868/dss.v2.id170
  15. UA. (2024). Millions of dollars for military development. 15 active investors in Ukrainian Defence Tech. https://en.ain.ua/2024/09/19/millions-of-dollars-for-military-development-15-active-investors-in-ukrainian-defence-tech/
  16. (2024). SIPRI Arms Industry Database. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/databases/armsindustry
  17. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). Arms Transfers Database 2021–2025. SIPRI. https://sipri.org
  18. Alperovitch, D. (2013). Tracking Advanced Persistent Threats. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2013/05/tracking-advanced-persistent-threats/
  19. Cichonski, T., & et al. (2014). NIST Special Publication 800-37: Guide for applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  20. (2024). Cyber defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm
  21. Kushner, D. (2013). The real story of Stuxnet. IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-real-story-of-stuxnet
  22. Rattray, G. (2013). The cyber domain: The next revolution in warfare? Cyber Defense Review, (1), 13–20.
  23. Cambridge University Press. (2017). Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations.
  24. Chertoff, M., & Simon, T. (2021). The impact of cyber risk on national security. Brookings Institution.
  25. (2022). ISO/IEC 27005:2022. Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection – Guidance on information security risk management. International Organization for Standardization.
  26. (2022). Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  27. (2025). Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security: NIST SP 800-82 Rev.2. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/82/r2/final
  28. (2025). Zero Trust Architecture: NIST SP 800-207. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SP800-207.pdf
  29. World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2024. WEF.
  30. Yermakov, V. S. (2024). Klasyfikatsiia kiberryzykiv u konteksti natsionalnoi bezpeky [Classification of cyber risks in the context of national security]. Systemy Upravlinnia, Navihatsii ta Zviazku [Systems of Control, Navigation and Communication], (1), 112–118.

The article was received 31.05.2026

Quote article, APA style

Shakhovets A. 31.05.2026. Cyber risks and strategic autonomy of military-industrial complexes in the era of global digitalization. Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics and Technology. 2026. №2. 485-490 pp. https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2026-2-91

Quote article, MLA style

Shakhovets A. Cyber risks and strategic autonomy of military-industrial complexes in the era of global digitalization. Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics and Technology. 31.05.2026. https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2026-2-91